Orientals Are The Superior Race?

[DeepThought]

And we also know that not all blacks have more fast twitch muscles, greater bone density, etc - Kenyans and Ethiopians do not, for example. They can't jump any better than whites, on average. They rule the marathon, though.

LOL.

You got it... blacks have much more muscle on their bodies. They are carrying less fat and have greater stamina.

Whites have more fat since they live in colder climates.... just like seals.

The entire question is vain. Until races have been defined in some non-sociological way, controlling for sociological influence is hopeless.

Races have been defined using hard science. Just check out the article at the top of page 4.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Idiot, I wasn't even talking about iq. I was talking about the fact he was very 'asian' in overall temperament compared to his halfsibling raised in the same household and both the mother and I agreed it was genetics as I was raised the same way but genes can be strong. From every habit and ways that we know as we're asian so we know, got it? Just as an african doesn't become white overnight just because he moves to alaska. I don't have a formal study but I know what I've witnessed so if you lack that much common sense, it's your problem.

Your experience is still not science. In general you cannot take a single data point regarding the behavior of a member of your family and either (a) assume its true globally for everyone or (b) assume that the temperament of an individual speaks to the genetics of a race of a billion or more people.

Your anecdotal evidence is crap to start with. Anecdotal evidence isn't even enough to conclusively show that there is a difference amongst the races at all, let alone to show the cause of that difference. At most, it shows that there are differences in the individuals you observed. The fact that you and your friends agreed that the differences you saw were caused by genetics is crap too, over and above the generalization you've made on the basis of your anecdotal observations.

If I may mirror your sentiment: if you lack an understanding of science such that you think your cited experience means anything, it's your problem.

And I would have to argue with you that genetics don't have something to do with iq, I think it does but nurturing does play a role in present and the potential you inherited. I agree with Iceaura's summation except for the diet aspect of african-americans, they like most americans enjoy a bounty of available food, sometimes much healthier than what whites eat. I would say other factors such as drug-infested and crime areas as well as cultural norms as well as genetics play a role in that aspect.

Did I say genetics have nothing to do with IQ? No. What I said was that if one wants to assert that certain traits are genetic, one must be prepared to refute the alternate hypothesis that the traits in question are not genetic. Generally, that requires that you find not only differences amongst the populations being studied, but that one must control (statistically in this case, since experimental controls are likely infeasible) for other factors that influence that trait.

As an aside, you should know that the choices are not just "genetics" versus "nurture" in this case, as you seem to imply. There are biological causes of temperament and other real differences between individuals that are not genetic. As such, while "nature v nurture" may be broad enough categories to capture difference, you can't assume that "nature," in this context, means "genetics."

Given how little you seem to understand about what "science" is, I'd be careful throwing around the word 'idiot" if I were you. The fact that you resorted to epithets at all bespeaks a certain lack of intellect. Couple that with your repeated indication that your barely analyzed anecdotal evidence conclusively demonstrates anything about the genetics of the children you observed and it becomes clear that your calling me an "idiot" is laughable.

 

[Zephyr]

An 'idiot' is sometimes just someone who's winning the argument

I don't know what all the fuss is about. An engineering company employing the best engineers will always do better than a company employing the engineers with the yellowest skin. Ability is a much better predictor of ability than is 'race'.

(During this century I think various enhancements will make everyone smart and fit anyway, but of course that's just a guess.)

 

[peta9]

Your experience is still not science. In general you cannot take a single data point regarding the behavior of a member of your family and either (a) assume its true globally for everyone or (b) assume that the temperament of an individual speaks to the genetics of a race of a billion or more people.

Your anecdotal evidence is crap to start with. Anecdotal evidence isn't even enough to conclusively show that there is a difference amongst the races at all, let alone to show the cause of that difference. At most, it shows that there are differences in the individuals you observed. The fact that you and your friends agreed that the differences you saw were caused by genetics is crap too, over and above the generalization you've made on the basis of your anecdotal observations.

If I may mirror your sentiment: if you lack an understanding of science such that you think your cited experience means anything, it's your problem.



Did I say genetics have nothing to do with IQ? No. What I said was that if one wants to assert that certain traits are genetic, one must be prepared to refute the alternate hypothesis that the traits in question are not genetic. Generally, that requires that you find not only differences amongst the populations being studied, but that one must control (statistically in this case, since experimental controls are likely infeasible) for other factors that influence that trait.

As an aside, you should know that the choices are not just "genetics" versus "nurture" in this case, as you seem to imply. There are biological causes of temperament and other real differences between individuals that are not genetic. As such, while "nature v nurture" may be broad enough categories to capture difference, you can't assume that "nature," in this context, means "genetics."

Given how little you seem to understand about what "science" is, I'd be careful throwing around the word 'idiot" if I were you. The fact that you resorted to epithets at all bespeaks a certain lack of intellect. Couple that with your repeated indication that your barely analyzed anecdotal evidence conclusively demonstrates anything about the genetics of the children you observed and it becomes clear that your calling me an "idiot" is laughable.

Again, I call you an idiot and pedantic. Because anyone who lacks common sense, applies logic where it is not applicable, and denies the obvious in favor of the abstract is just fooling themselves.

My intellect is intact, yours is out of touch as you are arguing and tripping all over yourself because you have a problem with Rushton's observations, period. It's called cognitive dissonance and your whole reply reeks of it as you employ 'logic' to nitpick a point to divert attention from an original fact. Your so-called logic was so completely irrevelant to the point and unrealistic, only a dishonest intellect would even spout such nonsense. The observation that an asian would still exhibit inherited genetic traits outside of his usual environment and that would also apply to not "everyone" of(which I was never claiming) but the majority of billions of asians would still be correct. Because I might observe a polar bear sweat in florida and surmise that would be genetics and change in environment as well as the usual less physically robust asian be outcompeted by others is not 'laughable' but right on target, honest target, and would potentially apply to the "billions" though not "everyone"(of course!) of their kind. A lot less dishonest and isolationist in my logic than you are actually.

They are not written in stone and they just reveal a general pattern which is indicative of genetic and cultural markers. Of course, any idiot would know a change in environment would potentially affect this pattern but it doesn't negate genetic inheritance. No matter how much you nitpick or deny it, my anecdotal evidence was only a confirmation of genetics which you totally took out of context and cite the ridiculous comparison of "billions of people." Still, those "billions" of people will retain and be affected by thier inherited genetics both in physical and mental constitution no matter where they go or what environment they find themselves in. It's something very simple which you seem to be having a hard time grappling with. Of course, idiot, there are differences within races as if that's not an obvious foregone conclusion. We're talking about general markers of these races based on thousands of years of evolution. Wake up!

 

[peta9]

An 'idiot' is sometimes just someone who's winning the argument

I don't know what all the fuss is about. An engineering company employing the best engineers will always do better than a company employing the engineers with the yellowest skin. Ability is a much better predictor of ability than is 'race'.

(During this century I think various enhancements will make everyone smart and fit anyway, but of course that's just a guess.)

You are also an idiot. No one is refuting that as there are less intelligent as well as more intelligent people in every group. You also have to consider other factors such as personality, personal initiative and whether the individual is the best fit for a particular position. That is not what we are arguing or the point of this thread. That still doesn't negate the difference in overall iq of a group versus another. An individual's intelligence quotient is not a patent indication of thier interest, ability, talent or even whether they would put forth an effort in a certain field.

The point is there are differences between the races due to physical isolation and evolution of those traits.

 

[DeepThought]

I don't know what all the fuss is about. An engineering company employing the best engineers will always do better than a company employing the engineers with the yellowest skin. Ability is a much better predictor of ability than is 'race'.

Zephyr,

Wake up.

Engineering companies DO employ people on the basis of their ability which is why they are dominated by Asians and Europeans.

The Three Gorges Dam project is the biggest engineering project in human history - the Chinese are building it right now.

(Actually scrap that the Great Wall of China was bigger and that was built by the errr.... oh yeah the Chinese!)

(During this century I think various enhancements will make everyone smart and fit anyway, but of course that's just a guess.)

Yawn...

You see that white people will go to any lengths to deny the existence of race when for centuries they believed in their racial superiority wholeheartedly.

So now we have to listen to this tedious liberal garbage until they finally admit that blacks are bigger, more muscular, more aggressive and less intelligent than whites who are in turn bigger, more muscular, more aggressive and less intelligent than Orientals.

Lets keep it real here and not get drawn into pedantry.

 

[Chatha]

Deepthought,

Well, Blacks may the less intelligent race, but please don't make me laugh by stating East Asians are the most superior race. The only civilized and developed Asian country is Japan. Hong Kong was only partly developed by heavy investing from Western former colonies. Most Asian countries are relatively uncivilized and braced with poverty, including China, which is only making waves these days because of sheer man power and patronization. Most(and someone should probably look this up) inventions and discoveries were made by caucasians. E.g, Calculus- invented by Newton and that German guy, and countless others. And intelligence is not everything. When was the last time you witnessed an Asian man win any mainstream sporting competition (okay, apart from ping pong). Most other race will beat them at many sports- Boxing, soccer, e.t.c. A chinese guy has not won the 100 m at the Olympics since 700 B.C. Please, don't make us laugh when you say Asians are superior to Caucasians.

 

[Challenger78]

More than likely the differences in abilities are a result of centuries of influence from their environments and what was passed on from past generations.... The next hundred years might even see Blacks top the charts.

 

[peta9]

Deepthought,

Well, Blacks may the less intelligent race, but please don't make me laugh by stating East Asians are the most superior race. The only civilized and developed Asian country is Japan. Hong Kong was only partly developed by heavy investing from Western former colonies. Most Asian countries are relatively uncivilized and braced with poverty, including China, which is only making waves these days because of sheer man power and patronization. Most(and someone should probably look this up) inventions and discoveries were made by caucasians. E.g, Calculus- invented by Newton and that German guy, and countless others. And intelligence is not everything. When was the last time you witnessed an Asian man win any mainstream sporting competition (okay, apart from ping pong). Most other race will beat them at many sports- Boxing, soccer, e.t.c. A chinese guy has not won the 100 m at the Olympics since 700 B.C. Please, don't make us laugh when you say Asians are superior to Caucasians.

It depends on how you define superior or inferior. If you are comparing overall characteristics from lower crime rate etc. Technology is not the only aspect of an evolved or civilized society. After all, there are plenty of less evolved humans who enjoy indoor plumbing and sanitation. Africans are physically superior. Caucasians are right in the middle with the physical and mental constitution but I still wouldn't consider them superior just as africans or asians because they are still missing a lot of characteristics I would consider superior from the subtle to the overt as well as they possess thier own peculiarities and subjectivism from what I've observed. With caucasians thier spirituality and outlook tends to be suffocating just like their religions, have their own blindspots just like others and though they are at current the most technologically advanced, I would not consider thier society's perfect or not lacking for improvement. I think asians are more holistically, mentally and spiritually evolved though and that is a subjective observation but there is a difference in overall temperament, attitude or approach to life which in some ways I think are considerably better or superior.

As far as inventions, asians and especially the chinese came up with many inventions and especially that affected war. The chinese were at one time the most advanced civilization in the world. Power tends to be like a tide, everturning and a baton run. As one invents, it gets passed to others and even improved on vice versa. It's obvious nature is trying to affect upward mobility as a whole species.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I wish my race was superior. That lady has a nice body with an ugly face...is she a crackhead?

*************
M*W: She sorta looks like a drunken Gweneth Paltrow.

 

[Pandaemoni]

anyone who ... applies logic where it is not applicable....

Yes, you've caught me, I apply logic where it's not applicable. I should learn from you and just ignore logic where the illogical conclusion matches my pre-existing opinions.

You are trying to answer a scientific question and invoking genetics as the supposed real-world underpinning for your racism, yet you are saying logic should not be used in evaluating that argument? Pray, tell, exactly when is logic inapplicable in the course of evaluating *any* argument, scientific or otherwise.

Only a fool thinks that the abandonment of logic makes him the superior intellect.

 

[peta9]

Yes, you've caught me, I apply logic where it's not applicable. I should learn from you and just ignore logic where the illogical conclusion matches my pre-existing opinions.

You are trying to answer a scientific question and invoking genetics as the supposed real-world underpinning for your racism, yet you are saying logic should not be used in evaluating that argument? Pray, tell, exactly when is logic inapplicable in the course of evaluating *any* argument, scientific or otherwise.

Only a fool thinks that the abandonment of logic makes him the superior intellect.

You still are arguing with me over the pointless. I never said anyone should abandon logic, only you were misplacing it and you completely took my point out of context. It was simply that there are traits that are genetically inherited and those traits can be particular or common to a certain breed though not always exclusive.

 

[Challenger78]

The point is there are differences between the races due to physical isolation and evolution of those traits.

That is true, Darwin's theory of evolution,
Each race due to its own geographical status evolved differently.

 

[Willy]

 

[peta9]

^and your point is? should I post a pic of an ugly, dumb caucasian?

Actually, I thought William Hung had some guts and he was not at all embarassed to be himself. I thought he was cute.

 

[Willy]

I did not say a word, your freaking yourself out.

 

[peta9]

Pictures are worth a thousand words, ain't it?

 

[Willy]

Do you think there as cute as William?

 

[iceaura]

You got it... blacks have much more muscle on their bodies. They are carrying less fat and have greater stamina.

Whites have more fat since they live in colder climates.... just like seals.

Except that the Kenyan blacks have less muscle on their bodies than the whites, the blacks in America carry more fat than the whites, the balcks from the Congo area have less stamina than whites in distance running, the yellows that live in in colder climates carried (when first measured) less fat than the whites in warmer climates, the blacks from warm south sea islands are fatter than the whites from Finland, and so forth and so forth and so on ad infinitum.

Races have been defined using hard science. Just check out the article at the top of page 4.

That article contains not one single word or reference to defining a race. They don't even say which race of blacks they were testing, or what genetic heritage the whites enjoyed. Did you not notice that? Or were you misled by the headline ?

o now we have to listen to this tedious liberal garbage until they finally admit that blacks are bigger, more muscular, more aggressive and less intelligent than whites who are in turn bigger, more muscular, more aggressive and less intelligent than Orientals.

Whites and blacks and yellows raised in the same circumstances for two generations will have essentially identical average heights, according to John Komlos - who is one of maybe three researchers to have done actual exhaustive research on that topic.

Blacks aren't bigger than whites. Whites aren't bigger than yellows.

The yellows in the far northern laititudes of North America had one of the highest murder rates on the planet, far higher than the blacks in inner city Detroit at its worst, until recently.

Yellows are not less aggressive than white or blacks - neither are northerners less aggressive than southerners.

There is no workable measure of "intelligence" that can be used to compare races, and no way to control for such variables as lead exposure (the single most significant racially differential factor discovered so far in the US) and micronutrient intake, and social customs such as breastfeeding.

The entire question rests on a completely bullshit, scoiologically "intuitive" definition of "race". Blacks are not one race, unless all the other humans are the other race - not even then, actually.

That is true, Darwin's theory of evolution,
Each race due to its own geographical status evolved differently.

That requires geographical isolation. The three "races" claimed on this thread have never been isolated from each other, as coherent groups. Only subgroups within the "races" have been isolated. - hence some of the intraracial variation.

 

[Zephyr]

Yawn...

You see that white people will go to any lengths to deny the existence of race when for centuries they believed in their racial superiority wholeheartedly.

And during that time those racists, convinced that Asians were inferior, would never have hired an Asian engineer. Even you now agree they were wrong:

Engineering companies DO employ people on the basis of their ability which is why they are dominated by Asians and Europeans.

Why, do you think, were they wrong? Why, do you think, will your generalisations be any more lasting than theirs were? Do you suggest engineering companies should hire Asians alone on policy?

The Three Gorges Dam project is the biggest engineering project in human history - the Chinese are building it right now.

(Actually scrap that the Great Wall of China was bigger and that was built by the errr.... oh yeah the Chinese!)

Sure. China is a great civilisation with many achievements. But have you considered the advantage that population size alone gives them? The top 25% (by any measure) of China's inhabitants outnumber all of America's inhabitants.